dated August 10, the last he appears to have written, with this expression:-"Nothing could have induced me to have deviated, in the slightest degree, from the orders I had received, but a thorough conviction upon my mind, that by so doing, to a certain extent, I should accomplish the object which his majesty had in view, when, by too strictly adhering to the letter of my instructions, I might lose the opportunity of promoting essentially his majesty's wishes and interest." The instructions to this minister, and the entire correspondence, have since been published.

ment.

In the arrangement made with Mr. Erskine, the American government relinquished the ground, taken immediately after the capture of the Chesapeake, that they would not treat of that affair, except in connexion with the business of impressThe government, also, expressed no dissatisfaction, that the officer, admiral Berkeley, had not only been recalled, but had recently been appointed to a high command at Lisbon. Nor could America have been satisfied with the partial explanation, given by Mr. secretary Canning to Mr. Pinkney, of the reasons of the disavowal of the Erskine arrangement; particularly as the secretary intimated, that the minister then in America would be furnished with instructions on this subject. Propriety obviously required, the explanation should be given on the spot; and, as the confidence of his government had been withdrawn from the individual who framed the provisional convention, he was an unsuitable person for that purpose. These instructions were never executed by him; a duty that naturally, and with great fitness, fell upon

ered to consign them to a formal and regular treaty.”— -"Upon the receipt here of an official note, containing an engagement for the adoption, by the American government, of the three conditions above specified, his majesty will be prepared, on the faith of such engagement, either immediately, (if the repeal shall have been immediate in America) or on any day specified by the American government for that repeal, reciprocally to recall the orders in council, without waiting for the conclusion of a treaty. And you are authorized, in the circumstances herein described, to take such reciprocal engagement on his majesty's behalf." Par. Hist. vol. xvii. Append. 124, 125, 126.

his successor. It is, however, proper to state, that Mr. Erskine was not invested with full power to make a treaty; and he had never exchanged his powers with any persons properly authorized, on the part of the American government. When the convention was made, he stood in the light only of an accredited minister. In a recent instance, our government withheld their sanction from a treaty, concluded by envoys invested with full powers, and especially accredited for that purpose. The ratification was refused, in that case, without the customary form of submitting it to that body, invested, under the constitution, with the examination of treaties. It is, indeed, evident, from an expression, in Mr. Erskine's letter, of April 18th, that he himself did not possess a full power. It is as follows: On these grounds and expectations, I am instructed to communicate to the American government, his majesty's determination of sending to the United States an envoy extraordinary, invested with full powers to conclude a treaty on all the points of the relations between the two countries." At that time, Mr. Erskine was authorized to bind his government, only on the three conditions of his instructions; he was, moreover, authorized to assure the American government, that if they wished to act upon the arrangement, before a formal treaty could be made, full and immediate effect should be given to it in England.

The next negotiation presents us with still greater circumstances of irritation, though of a novel character; it began in anger, and was speedily terminated. Francis J. Jackson, the successor of Mr. Erskine, who had been recalled, arrived in the autumn of 1809, in this country. Having presented his credential letters, he had two conferences with the Secretary of State; but verbal communication did not extend beyond that point. On the 9th of October, the Secretary addressed him a note, complaining that no distinct or solid reasons had been given for the disavowal of the Erskine arrangement, with the additional remark that the government was entitled to receive not only a formal disavowal from a public functionary on the spot, but the acknowledged principles of the laws of nations (Vattel) required, that the reasons should be

"solid and weighty." The case was an extraordinary one : in the usual conventions, made between nations, no part of them were, in general, subject to be executed, till ratified by the respective governments. But the arrangement of 1809 was carried, by the American government, into immediate execution; and the merchants, relying upon the good faith with which it was concluded, sent their vessels to sea, as soon as the time, fixed by the proclamation of the President, would allow. The letter concluded with the following expression: To avoid the misconceptions, incident to oral proceedings, I have the honour to intimate, that it is thought expedient, that our further discussions, on the present occasion, be in the written form." An answer was written to

this letter, on the 11th, by Mr. Jackson:

"I have had the honour of receiving your official letter of the 9th inst. towards the close of which you inform me, that it has been thought expedient to put an end to all verbal communication, between yourself and me, in discussing the important objects of my mission. Considering that a very few days have elapsed, since I delivered to the President a credential letter from the king, my master—and that nothing has been even alleged to have occurred, to deprive me of the facility of access, and of the credit to which, according to immemorial usage, I am by that letter entitled, I believe there does not exist, in the annals of diplomacy, a precedent for such a determination, between two ministers, who have met for the avowed purpose of terminating amicably the existing dif ferences between their respective countries; but, after mature reflection, I am induced to acquiesce in it, by recollection of the time that must necessarily elapse, before I can receive his majesty's commands upon so unexpected an occurrence, and of the detriment that would ensue to the public service, if my ministerial functions were, in the interval, to be altogether suspended. I shall, therefore, content myself with entering my protest against a proceeding, which I can consider in no other light, than as a violation, in my person, of the most essential rights of a public minister, when adopted, as in the present case, without any alleged misconduct on his part."

This declaration was, perhaps, hasty; and the opinion, here expressed, will, on examination, be found to be incorrect. Two discussions had been held, and such progress made in the topic, as to render a precise statement necessary, in order that the views and propositions of the respective parties might be exactly understood,-a proceeding not unusual in diplomacy. A very recent instance took place in the negotiation, in 1808, between Mr. Pinkney and Mr. Canning. The late diplomatic intercourse between the two governments rendered such a precaution abundantly necessary, various and important misconceptions having arisen from neglect of this mode of proceeding. The instructions, sent by Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, originated entirely in a misunderstanding on the part of the latter gentleman of the sentiments expressed in conversation with members* of the government. Mr. Jackson was, also, somewhat incorrect in the construction he put on the intimation of the American secretary; the language not admitting of a meaning, so broad and comprehensive. It was apparently intended, that the restriction to written communication should apply only to the particular discussions then in hand;-by no means to a denial of all verbal intercourse whatever. Mr. Jackson was satisfied with an explanation of this matter, subsequently given.

The correspondence between the American secretary of state and the British minister began under these and other unfavourable auspices; it had a speedy and unfortunate termination. Omitting other matters, that led to some angry remarks, we shall proceed at once to the particular topic, that immediately brought about the dismissal of Mr. Jackson. It turned upon the point, whether the whole of Mr. Erskine's instructions were known to the American government. We shall begin with an extract from Mr. Jackson's letter of October 11, where this subject is first mentioned:

"It was not known, when I left England, whether Mr. Erskine had, according to the liberty allowed him, communicated to you in extenso his original instructions. It now appears that he did not.

* Messrs. Gallatin, Smith and Madison.

But in reverting to his official correspondence and particularly to a despatch addressed on the 20th of April to his majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, I find that he there states, that he had submitted to your consideration the three conditions, specified in those instructions as the ground work of an arrangement, which, according to information received from this country, it was thought in England might be made with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. Erskine there reports verbatim et seriatim your observations upon each of the three conditions, and the reasons, which induced you to think, that others might be substituted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded between you, that these latter were an equivalent for the original conditions, but the very act of substitution evidently shows, that those original conditions were in fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by you of course laid before the President for his consideration. I need hardly add, that the difference between these conditions, and those contained in the arrangement of the 18th and 19th of April, is sufficiently obvious to require no elucidation, nor need I draw the conclusion, which I consider as admitted by all absence of complaint on the part of the American government; viz., that under such circumstances his majesty had an undoubted and incontrovertible right to disavow the act of his minister. I must here allude to a supposition, which you have more than once mentioned to me, and by which, if it had any the slightest foundation, this right might perhaps have been in some degree affected. You have informed me that you understood that Mr. Erskine had two sets of instructions by which to regulate his conduct, and that upon one of them, which had not been communicated either to you or to the public, was to be rested the justification of the terms finally agreed upon between you and him. It is my duty, sir, solemnly to declare to you, and through you to the President, that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, which you have made the basis of an official correspondence with the latter minister, and which was read by the former to the American minister in London, is the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement with this country on the matter to which it relates."

This paragraph plainly intimates that the American government were acquainted with Mr. Erskine's instructions.